In the past few days, North Korea has thrown more threats towards the U.S., including a promise to only use nuclear weapons against America.

Then a report revealed today that the hermit kingdom “has produced a compact nuclear warhead that can be placed inside one of its advanced missiles.” These threats prompted a lashing out from President Donald Trump.

“North Korea best not make any more threats to the U.S.,” the president said. “They will be met with the fire and the fury like the world has never seen. He has been very threatening beyond a normal state,” he continued, referring apparently to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) completed the report last month, which also states that North Korea may have 60 nuclear weapons. From The Washington Post:

“The IC [intelligence community] assesses North Korea has produced nuclear weapons for ballistic missile delivery, to include delivery by ICBM-class missiles,” the assessment states, in an excerpt read to The Washington Post. The assessment’s broad conclusions were verified by two U.S. officials familiar with the document. It is not yet known whether the reclusive regime has successfully tested the smaller design, although North Korea officially last year claimed to have done so.

A Japanese defense paper released on Tuesday came to the same conclusions:

“North Korea’s development of ballistic missiles and its nuclear programme are becoming increasingly real and imminent problems for the Asia-Pacific region including Japan, as well as the rest of the world,” said the report, which ran to more than 500 pages.

Japan’s defence ministry said that security threats had reached a new stage after the North conducted two nuclear tests and more than 20 ballistic missile launches last year.

The report went on to speculate that North Korea had improved its technological expertise to the point where it could theoretically marry a nuclear warhead with a missile.

“It is conceivable that North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme has already considerably advanced and it is possible that North Korea has already achieved the miniaturisation of nuclear weapons into warheads and has acquired nuclear warheads,” the ministry said.

Sanctions

Last Saturday, the United Nations Security Council passed new sanctions against North Korea. China and Russia, pretty much North Korea’s only allies, even voted for the sanctions, which remove $1 billion off of the country’s “annual revenue.”

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley, who has always had harsh words for the Security Council, praised the votes. She pointed out China, who worked with the U.S. on the resolution:

“This resolution is the single largest economic sanctions package ever leveled against the North Korean regime,” said Ms. Haley, adding the council had put the country and its leadership “on notice” and “what happens next is up to North Korea.”

Southeast Asia

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has spoken to other countries in Southeast Asia about shutting “down North Korean front companies.” Tillerson spoke to these leaders in the Philippines at an Asian security summit and encouraged them to enforce the sanctions.

Tillerson then went to to Thailand and Malaysia in an effort to strengthen our relationship with the countries. The Wall Street Journal explained that in order for the sanctions to work, these countries in Southeast Asia must cooperate since many of them “maintain diplomatic and economic relationships with North Korea.”

Some countries have shown signs of resistance towards North Korea:

One Southeast Asian diplomat said his country wasn’t approving some staff at the North Korean embassy and had denied meetings at a senior level. The 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations called on North Korea on Saturday to comply with sanctions and said they supported “irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

In Bangkok on Tuesday, Foreign Minister Don Pramudwinai said Thailand had cut trade with North Korea by more than 90% in the first six months of this year compared with the same period a year earlier. He said Thailand would also implement U.N. sanctions but that “we are not going to completely cut ties.”

I wonder if China and Russia have taken notice of the Presidents words and tone? This may be an international leader intelligent test we are watching. Trump is not kidding and the NORKs calling the bluff will end very poorly for that side of the world.

Nothing mystical or magical about nuclear weapons. People forget that with the fire bombing of Tokyo in 1945 between 100K and 120K were burned to death and many lingered on and many were maimed. It is not the weapon as who has the weapon. In the debate years past between the Prime Minister of New Zealand and Jerry Falwell:

Letting NK or Iran have nukes invites terror and at the least blackmail. The can being kicked down the road is not a huge dumpster filled with disaster.

As Pericles noted… good men must at times go to battle to make the future safer. Those days of easier accomplishment have been frittered away. NK is not the mouse that roared but the rat carrying bubonic plaque.

I do not often agree with Ragspierre but he makes a valid point. Dead is dead and the horror of how someone dies is felt by the living.

Nukes, horrific as they are, are not the be-all end-all of weapons. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still here to this day.

At Hiroshima over 70000 people were killed. 35000 died in Nagasaki. They died within minutes of the bombs being dropped. An estimated 100000 died from the after effects.

Compare that to Nanking. Over a 6-week period the Japanese army killed at least that many people one at a time, many dying by the sword. It is unknown how many died due to disease, famine, and exposure to the winter elements.

The Holodomor; Holocaust; Armenian Genocide: much worse than being nuked but the victims are just as dead.

Please note that I do not support war, but “Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum.”

Ragspierre: Nuclear weapons are just great big bombardment weapons. If you’re killed by high explosives or a nuclear detonation, you’re just dead.

A nuclear exchange would kill far more people, destroying entire cities much more effectively than conventional weapons. It could also have grave effects on the world’s ecosystems, and human sustainability. The thinking is that if a nation uses a nuclear weapon even if in a limited engagement, it would be far more likely for it to happen again, increasing the chances of an all-out nuclear war.

There have been terrible devastations in the past, but never on a global scale and never almost instantaneously. Probably the worst devastations were the Mongol invasions, but they reached their limits, geographical limits in the east, and population limits in the west.

Ragspierre: I don’t advocate using nukes, but neither do a suggest sitting on our hands until they are used against us or kneeling to some psychopath who threatens their use.

Of course not, but nuclear weapons are the worst choice, for the reasons given, and because they are blunt force when the U.S. can deliver much more precise damage.

Ragspierre: Which presupposes the power to do that. Sometimes, that power is non-existent.

Sure, but there are a valid reasons to believe the description is correct. The U.S. might not have invaded, which precipitated the ensuing chaos. Or the U.S. might have deployed sufficient troops for the occupation, instead of somehow convincing themselves that simply removing Saddam would allow democracy to flower. Or the U.S. might have not disbanded the Iraqi army, which would have reduced the numbers Iraqi soldiers joining the insurgency.

Ragspierre: Our own Revolution was pretty chaotic. Wasn’t it…???

That is incorrect. The colonies had working governments, including legislatures, before, during, and after the war. Compare to the French Revolution. The monarchy had drawn all power to itself, and any institution associated with the monarchy — which was virtually every institution — was tainted. Removing the monarchy meant there were no standing institutions left. They went so far as to rename the days of the week and the months of the year. There was nothing left.

Ragspierre: Was Iraq a killing ground for terrorists world wide?

Consider it as a cancer. You can cut some of it out, but once it metastasizes, it continues to grow and spread.

Ragspierre: If, out of the chaos of ending the tyranny in N. Korea while defend the U.S., a people were freed would you consider that a bad thing?

Sure, it could happen that way. And one day the North Koreans will certainly be free. But chaos is such that the end results are largely unpredictable.

Just like when Israel took out the Iraqi reactor in 1981, many would criticize Trump no matter what. But if there is action against North Korea, perhaps China and Russia may stand down. They have as much to lose as anyone. Is South Korea ready to defend itself, not to mention Japan, to help establish a better balance of power?

Wait a minute, this is beginning to sound vaguely familiar: “The intelligence community” is certain a dictator is in possession of VMD that are a threat to the US. The President buys the assessment and takes action. Turns out that actual evidence is different from that of the assessment. “The intelligence community” is very quiet, the POTUS is accused of falsifying the intelligence and is vilified and ridiculed for his actions. Is a trap being set?

The Kurds found out about WMD. How many hundred tons of yellow cake did we take out of Iraq? Nuke detonations and ICBM launches… hard to miss… and hard to fake.

This whole ongoing episode is a great advertisement for selling nuke weapons by North Korea. How many hundreds of millions of dollars for a portable nuke? Frankly… you only need 3 to freeze the USA … detonate one… have the second to prove more than one and by then the third is a strong negotiation tool. This is all leading to blackmail. It is bad and getting badder….

We miss out years ago with Carter and Iran, then Tora Bora with OBL… we mess up in Afghanistan and the pull out of Iraq too early. We blink so much pushing the envelope is how one approaches the USA these days.

So… a nuke goes off in USA and who made it? Can’t blow up everyone… so squelching development and production now is better than later.

Some noise from the White House is appropriate. The world has become accustomed to Obama’s America, in which the grossest foreign challenges were met by … nothing much. And that’s a bad situation for everybody.

Interesting… the left and the never Trumpers have all taken Trump’s response as an unprovoked threat against North Korea. I have never seen so many people in this country so completely divorced from reality.

Is it your assertion that, after Trump’s brilliantly conceived and executed victory, the #NT contingent disbanded and took up gardening? It seems to me that, having failed to prevent his election, they are working full throttle to prevent his presidency.

Because you asked so nicely.
You have frequently stated on LI:”I (rags) never lie!”. But your statement that #NT no longer exists appears to be at odds with the facts for the reasons I stated, thus creating a paradox (kind of a reversal of the Liars Paradox). As G. K. Chesterton’s writings show, paradoxes expose the ambigiuites in common concepts and beliefs, and resolving them leads to clarity. In this case, failure to show that #NT no longer exists would clarify the question of your veracity.

YOU never stated any “facts”. You made a really stupid assertion, which started with the premise that #neverT-rumpers were “banded”. People like the Prof. here were simply independent thinkers who had reached the same conclusions I did.

You began with a straw-man predicate; “Is it your assertion that, after Trump’s brilliantly conceived and executed victory, the #NT contingent disbanded and took up gardening?”

So, no. They were never “banded”, and we simply accepted we had to endure the T-rumpian reign AFTER barely defeating the weakest Deemocrat candidate in modern times. We remain critical thinkers dedicated to #realism in the face of delusional cultists like yourself. As I’ve said several times in the recent past, we hope some strong hand can control Der Donald in what seems his apparent drive to marginalize himself. When you claim that anyone like me seeks to “prevent” his presidency, that’s two lies. First, we don’t have that power, and second we have no such intent or interest. I don’t know anyone who does amid the cohort of rationalists I read and have any connection to.

We’d CERTAINLY like to prevent some of his Collectivist plans, such as his Keynesian infrastructure boondoggle and Ivanka’s new entitlement program, along with his loopy Bernie Sanders economic controls of the economy.

There is no “paradox”, and you’ve failed (as always) to make any kind of valid argument.

Now, you can TRY to answer my question; who are the T-rump critics to whom Sandog referred? I’m pretty well-read, and I don’t know of any who are accusing T-rump of being the provocateur here.

You made the unproven assertion, not me. You said #NT ended with the election: “Partly because there is no such thing (T-rump won)…”, without offering proof. The facts don’t seem to support your statement, and I wanted to be clear on your position. In a prior reply to Fen in this thread you said:“Writing with clarity is also pretty important.

Those of us who are trial lawyers also know to ask clarifying questions in the face of ambiguity.”

Seeking clarity, I decided to try the approach you recommended. From your reply, it is clear that you only like that approach when you get to do it.

It doesn’t matter, because now we have an answer. You say it was never ‘banded’. (Being pedantic is not the same as being intelligent, but it doesn’t matter since the form it existed in is not material to the discussion.) And you claim membership (use of ‘we’ in describing the goals of the group) So, before the election it existed in some form, united by its opposition to Trump’s election. After the election (you say) it remains in existence, united by its opposition to Trump’s policies and his general unsuitability for the office. (Note: the same goals and reasons as the progressive left.) So, it still exists and your statement to the contrary is a lie. That it lacks the power to directly bring him down is immaterial. By your own words #NT continues to exist, and that is sufficient to answer the question I asked.

But, since you are the gift that keeps on giving: They were never “banded”, and we simply accepted we had to endure the T-rumpian reign AFTER barely defeating the weakest Deemocrat candidate in modern times.
Let’s look at the 2nd part of that. Trump is such a poor candidate (you say) that he barley defeated Clinton (a horrible candidate). It’s a nice story that feeds your fantasy, But… He wipped Ted’s ass, didn’t he? And the asses of the other 16 dwarfs. Let’s say that again: He wipped Ted’s ass, didn’t he? Either Ted’s a worse candidate than Hillary, or Trump’s a better candidate than you give him credit for. It’s also pretty clear evidence of just how ineffective you and yours were at getting a conservative into office during the best climate for the right in decades, and how weak Ted was as a candidate. It’s a pretty sad, but accurate, commentary on your abilities and those of #NT in general. You guys are really so politically ass-toot! /sarc LMAO

Then you say: ‘We remain critical thinkers dedicated to #realism in the face of delusional cultists like yourself.’
Your devotion to realism didn’t and doesn’t include telling anyone who the better conservative alternative to Trump was on Nov 8. Because there wasn’t one – a reality you can’t accept. And in your TDS you chose Hillary, and you don’t want anyone to know.
It was nicer when your favorite candidate just called us a basket of deplorables. More succinct. Better sound bite. And it avoids the charge of hubris by focusing on us and not your claimed superiority. But you can’t help it, you’re so wrapped up in yourself and your fantasy that you don’t care how you appear. The fact that you have to announce how great you are is another reason why no one votes for your candidates.

The paradox is obvious – look it up.

Finally, Sanddog’s list is his. I can’t read his mind to get it. It’s not relevant to my question of the continued existence of #NT, which has been answered. Besides, only a total idiot would think that a list a 3rd party intuited has any value – oh, that explains it!

2. you are a REAL hater…I mean of the frothing-at-the-mouth band, and you really, truly hate me. You are pathological.

3. you are a ThoughtPolicing Stalinist goon; your purpose with the fantastic (literally) bullshit you project on me is to demoralize me and discredit me here. It’s a filthy thing you do, but it’s all you are.

To your first response:
As usual, the facts don’t support your case so you revert to name calling and ad hominum. Predictable and pathetic. There was no troll. The question I asked (politely) proved to be valid and exposed a lie. You responded with an insult and dodged the question.

To your second:
1- there is no equivalence between you and prof. Quit claiming one. The treatment you get should be unequal.
*- prof doesn’t make up demeaning names for those he disagrees with. You do.
*- Prof can disagree without being disagreeable. You can’t.
*- Prof treats people with respect, even when he disagrees with them. You don’t.
*- prof doesn’t use ad hominum. You do.
*- Prof is a gentleman. You are not.
That’s why you get different treatment.

2- I hate the fraud that you represent and way you treat those who disagree with you. To hate you personally I would have to make an emotional investment in you. Frankly, you aren’t worth the effort.

3- To ‘discredit’ you in this thread, all I had to do was politely ask a question and reply to each of the points in your response(s). Your problem is not my Stalinesque machinations, but the content of your own replies. An intelligent man would ponder what’s wrong with his answers, not try to shoot the messenger.

There is merit to neutron bombs, which eradicate all living things while leaving most of the real estate intact. I say most because if the neutron flux is high enough their sixty or whatever nukes would likely go off. Those would be dirty detonations, while the neutron devices are comparatively clean. That would be a really funny form of poetic justice.

Look at it this way, if we make a really good example with North Korea, Iran will be cowered, and if they are not we can always make an example out of them.

It won’t be nuclear but it will be lethal. They won’t have time to react. Fatboy and his generals won’t be running from tunnel to tunnel anymore if they threaten us again. I wouldn’t test this President if I were him.

And stop playing the victim. You tried to poke and got body slammed. Tired of your shit. Not giving you an inch. Go back to the Sally Struthers School of Law and ask for a refund – they ripped you off.

The two of you can debate your ” Semantics,” all that you want. This President Trump, Means what he says. We are not dealing with a ” Limp-Wristed,” or ” Globalist,” Politician now. We are led by someone who loves America and I and many others believe that he will protect the ” USA,” at all costs.

Announcement

Announcement

When doing your Christmas online shopping, be sure to use this SHOP AMAZON DEALS link.

Newsletter

Morning Insurrection

Get the latest from Legal Insurrection each morning plus exclusive Cyber Insurrection and Author Quick Hits!